Our Supreme Court acted in rebellion to our Constitution by refusing to take up the Kim Davis case (same-sex marriage)

Politics
1

"The Supreme Court on Monday morning turned down a request from Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky, to reconsider its 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In a brief, unsigned order, the justices rejected Davis’ petition for review of a ruling by a federal appeals court upholding an award of $100,000 to a gay couple to whom she had refused to issue a marriage license. That petition had also asked the justices to overrule the 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, arguing that a right to same-sex marriage “had no basis in the Constitution.”

Kim Davis took an oath to uphold Kentucky’s Constitution.

Kentucky Constitution

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.” (Text as Ratified on: November 2, 2004.)

Keep in mind the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states and people therein those powers not delegated to Congress.

And, Federalist No. 45, summarizes the powers reserved to the states as follows:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

In refusing to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples, what constitutional provision(s) state or federal, and made in pursuance of the Constitution, did Kim Davis violate?

Our Supreme Court acted in rebellion to our Constitution by refusing to review the Kim Davis case, and has been lying about same-sex marriages being protected under the 14th Amendment, see Obergefell v. Hodges where “sex” and the 14th Amendment is at issue.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

1 Like
2

Oh jeez. This debate again.

3 Likes
3

Just like in R v W the court just made up a right.

2 Likes
4

The same thing applies to interracial marriages. They literally used the same rule to decide Ogerfell as the court of the 60s used to decide Loving.

5

People were born with their skin color though.

1 Like
6

True. But the two court cases were decided on the same principle. Substantive due process. You kill Ogerfell, you put Loving in danger.

1 Like
7

Not that I have any energy to fight the disaster that is gay marriage, but I’m quite certain that far more people would be protective of mixed-melanin marriages than gay marriages. Most of us have blood-related family members of different skin tones at this point.

3 Likes
8

I would hope so but I’m not the most trusting person in the world with stuff like that. The legal court precedent that protects it is important in my opinion.

1 Like
9

Judging someone based on genetic traits is out.

Culture is still a valid critique, but no skin tone is even close to homogeneous in that regard.

2 Likes
10

I prefer to ferreting out documented facts as opposed to a contentious debate.

For example, nowhere in the long-winded written opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, authored by Justice Kennedy, is there conclusive, or even sufficient evidence, that by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection or due process clause, is a State required to perform and recognize same-sex marriages on the same terms as opposite-sex marriages.

The amendment declares “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”

The due process reference applies to State action and to “any person” [singular] as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids each State to deprive any “person” [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of . . . ” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance established procedural rules.

And, with reference to ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” this wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person [singular] within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction, the equal application of those specific laws.

With regard to Justice Kennedy invoking “due process”, see Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

11

So homosexuality is a race now?

1 Like
12

No it’s not. But the precedent that made Ogerfell the law of the land is the same argument that was used for Loving back in the 60s.

13

Not to mention skin color is confirmed genetic.

Same can’t be said for homosexuality.

1 Like
14

That doesn’t really apply though.

The state has an obligation to extend legal jurisdiction to all of its citizens. If they’re going to offer legal marriage, it has to be done equally and equitably. The only way out of that obligation is to remove all legal protections for marriage for everyone, gay or straight.

3 Likes
15

*Obergefell *

1 Like
16

That would be optimal.

17

:+1:

And, unlike Roe v Wade, the S.C. in refusing to review the Davis case, in which she asks the S.C. to overturn Obergefell and its “made up right”, she is stuck with shelling out an award of $100,000.

18

Horsefeathers.

The world survived literally thousands upon thousands of years without recognizing homosexual marriage. And the country survived for centuries without it.

Why?

Because a civilization benefits from heterosexual marriage. ie future generations

Not so with homosexual version.

Exactly how does society in general benefit from homosexuality?

There has always been restrictions upon marriage, ie can’t marry children, can’t marry a relative, etc.

Homosexuality is in the exact same category. Doesn’t qualify.

That is until the Supreme Court got woke snd made it up out of thin air.

3 Likes
19

You’re smarter than multiple levels of the court system. :+1:

The only upshot here is that you’re going to end up bickering with anonymous board members over nuances with arguments that will just end up talking past the other guy. :man_shrugging:

1 Like
20

You seem to ignore the fact that the American people in the 1980’s, specifically reject the Equal Rights Amendment which was designed to invoke your above articulated vision.

One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to homosexual marriage.

The ERA having been rejected since the 1920s, the Supreme Court finally decided to impose its will as the rule of law and do for the people that which they refused to do by our Constitution’s only lawful way to accommodate for such change . . . Article V, our system’s amendment process.

Why do you support support such judicial tyranny?